Vickery Design, Inc. v. Aspen Bay Company ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                                                                         F I L E D
    United States Court of Appeals
    Tenth Circuit
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           JUN 1 1999
    TENTH CIRCUIT                      PATRICK FISHER
    Clerk
    VICKERY DESIGN, INC., a New
    Mexico corporation,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    No. 98-2217
    v.                                            (D.C. No. CIV-96-25-JP/DJS)
    (New Mexico)
    ASPEN BAY COMPANY, a foreign
    corporation,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
    Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
    Vickery Design, having registered its miniature corn candle, the Corndle, in
    compliance with copyright laws under 
    17 U.S.C. § 1
    , et seq., filed an action to
    enjoin Aspen Bay from manufacturing and selling corn-shaped candles similar to
    the Corndle; to impound copies of the infringing candles and masters; to recall all
    *
    This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
    doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
    generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
    and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
    copies in commerce; and to recover damages. The district court dismissed the
    action and Vickery Design appeals. We affirm.
    Vickery Design argues that the district court erred (1) in holding that a
    candle in the shape of a miniature ear of corn is not subject to copyright
    protection, (2) erred in not applying an “ordinary observer” test to determine
    substantial similarity, and (3) erred in holding that Aspen Bay’s corn candle was
    not substantially similar to the Corndle.
    We review the district court's dismissal for an abuse of discretion. We
    accept the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous and
    review application of legal principles de novo. See Harolds Stores, Inc. v.
    Dillards Dep’t Store, Inc., 
    82 F.3d 1533
    , 1555 (10th Cir. 1996); Country Kids ‘N
    City Slicks, Inc. v. Sheen, 
    77 F.3d 1280
    , 1283 (10th Cir. 1996).
    The copyright law does not allow a monopoly on the idea of an object
    occurring in nature. See 
    17 U.S.C. § 102
    (a) (providing that copyright protection
    extends only “to original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
    expression.”); see also Herbert v. Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 
    446 F.2d 738
    , 742 (9th Cir. 1971) (idea of a pin in the shape of a bee cannot be protected
    by copyright). While the idea cannot be monopolized, the artistic expression of
    that idea is protected by copyright laws. Thus, a candle in the shape of a
    miniature ear of corn created to reflect the way it occurs in nature cannot be
    -2-
    claimed as an original work to be protected by copyright laws although the unique
    expressions of the actual corn candle can be protected. See Country Kids ‘N City
    Slicks, Inc., 77 F.3d at 1286 (distinguishing the idea of a wooden form of
    traditional paper dolls from a copied doll); Concrete Machinery Co., v. Classic
    Lawn Ornaments, Inc., 
    843 F.2d 600
    , 607 (1st Cir. 1988) (distinguishing the
    concept of a concrete life-sized deer from the facial expression, pose and posture
    of a particular created deer.)
    In the instant case, the district court found that although the Corndle was
    substantially similar to Aspen Bay’s miniature corn candles in shape, taper, color
    and weight, those features pre-existed in nature and occurred from a commonality
    in the subject matter. Both candle designs were produced from molds of real ears
    of corn. The district court further found that the actual artistic expression of the
    ears were not the same. For example, Corndles have straight rows of kernels
    while Aspen Bay’s rows have a twisted shape. Having reviewed the record and
    the proffered exhibits, we decline to disturb these factual findings.
    Applying these facts to the established law of this circuit that a corn candle
    design is protectable but only to the extent “of the creative and artistic
    modifications of individual kernels in the wax sculptures, and not as to the overall
    size and configuration of the miniature corn candle,” we hold that Vickery
    Designs has failed to prove a copyright violation. After reviewing the appellate
    -3-
    briefs and the record, we AFFIRM for substantially the reasons set forth in the
    district court’s order.
    ENTERED FOR THE COURT
    Stephanie K. Seymour
    Chief Judge
    -4-